Obama announces debt deal--GOP/Tea Party members WIN big!

[ShackledNation]

The BBA is dead in each chamber. They will vote, and the BBA will fail.

Oh yes, no real spending cuts or balanced budget amendment. Taxes to be increased. The perfect storm for a decade of a failing economy. Obama's legacy as the worst President since Carter is firmly in place.

If he beats either Perry or Romney, the only two GOP names right now who can possibly run even with him, your hero may have an opportunity to change your mind.

Actually, according to Rasmussen polls, Ron Paul has just as good of a chance, if not better, and beating Obama. They are virtually neck and neck.

 

[Modbert]

Actually, according to Rasmussen polls, Ron Paul has just as good of a chance, if not better, and beating Obama. They are virtually neck and neck.

If polls were an indicator of who's going to win, Ron Paul would be President already considering how he won every GOP straw poll in 2008. Except in reality, he didn't even place better than 3rd. He'll be lucky if he can match that showing this time around.

 

[grunt11b]

I'm confident that if they hold the vote off until after 2012, and conservatives win both chambers and the white house, it will pass.

The GOP has no idea what they're doing as a whole when it comes to the Balanced Budget Amendment. Doesn't help that a large part of their party thinks the budget can be balanced by cutting waste, NPR, and foreign aid. If a lot of "Conservatives" realized the full implications of what the Balanced Budget Amendment entails, they likely wouldn't support it.

It goes much further than the Ryan plan (which helped Republicans lose a extremely red district) and none of Reagan's budgets would have been constitutional under it.

I still stand by the fact that 49 states have some form of a Balanced Budget Amendment and a ton of them are in deep trouble even with the help of the Federal Government. Without the Feds, several states would likely be completely bankrupt at this point. This doesn't even include the ones like Texas which are "balancing" their budgets through accounting measures. If the BBA was the magical solution that some of it's proponents are saying it is, we wouldn't be having these problems.

If the federal government would stop bailing out states period maybe the states will live within their means and not have the problems they have now, like California for a prime example. Also if this where the case the federal gubment would not be in the position it's in now fiscally. California is not entitled to my federal tax dollars to cover it's irresponsible policies. The sooner that money get's cut off, the sooner people will vote those morons out of office and get someone in there who will be responsible.

 

[ShackledNation]

Actually, according to Rasmussen polls, Ron Paul has just as good of a chance, if not better, and beating Obama. They are virtually neck and neck.

If polls were an indicator of who's going to win, Ron Paul would be President already considering how he won every GOP straw poll in 2008. Except in reality, he didn't even place better than 3rd. He'll be lucky if he can match that showing this time around.

I'm not saying polls mean everything. I was responding to someone who alluded to polls that put Perry and Romney up as the best GOP candidates to beat Obama. Ron Paul's support has only grown, so if anything he will do better.

 

[Modbert]

If the federal government would stop bailing out states period maybe the states will live within their means and not have the problems they have now, like California for a prime example. Also if this where the case the federal gubment would not be in the position it's in now fiscally. California is not entitled to my federal tax dollars to cover it's irresponsible policies. The sooner that money get's cut off, the sooner people will vote those morons out of office and get someone in there who will be responsible.

United States Federal Tax Dollars -

Except for every tax dollar they receive per tax dollar paid is 0.78. So California is #8 out of all 50 states.

So while I know you are probably told over and over again it's all states like California's fault for taking all the federal government money, it's not.

 

[Too Tall]

There's only one legislative branch, not three. The Office of the President is part of the executive branch, and is not a chamber in the legislative.

That was a good catch. What is a fact is that the House of Representatives is only 1 of 3 co-equal branches of government. And the 'tea party' does not control the House.

The President is part of the legislative process in that he submits a budget to them and has a veto over any and all legislation that they pass.

No, the President is not part of the legislative branch. His power to veto is a check on the legislative branch. Line-item veto was declared unconstitutional because such vetos gave legislative power to the president. Saying no to a law is not an act of legislating, it is an executive power. The president is not part of the legislative branch at all, period.

What part of "in that' did you fail to comprehend? Would 'in as much as' been easier for you?

The President, as the leader of the Democrat party, just as Bush was the leader of the Republican party, exerts an almost absolute power over the members of his party in the legislature.

When Obama wants something, he hollers SHIT at Pelosi and Reid and they holler back 'what color and how high a pile.'

 

[kaz]

HALF of the so-called tea party in the House voted for this bill. That's the 'big victory' being talked about here.

All the tea partiers voted against it. The opportunistic ones who wanted to gain the marketing but who don't really believe in liberty just identified themselves.

The pure TeaPots are dangerously wrong, so they must go. The opportunists should go, too, but I imagine that Boehner scared the holy joe out of them.

Teapartiers are dangerous all right, to government loving fools who are building the prison walls of government around themselves and sadly gladly so. But to those of us who haven't given up on freedom they are a Godsend.

 

[Ali777]

So can someone explain how this super committee works? Obama can still veto whatever they send to his desk, right? What about when the incentives are triggered, can he veto that?

 

[kaz]

HALF of the so-called tea party in the House voted for this bill. That's the 'big victory' being talked about here.

All the tea partiers voted against it. The opportunistic ones who wanted to gain the marketing but who don't really believe in liberty just identified themselves.

No True Scotsman!

I see, a liberal knows a true tea partier. Gotcha. Next time I want a retarded opinion I know where to find you. No true tea partier would support a $100 billion cut with a $1.4 trillion deficit. It's what the whole movement is about. Yet they compromised from there. That's not a True Scotsman fallacy, that's content. Something since you're a liberal you'd obviously know nothing about so I"m not sure why I'm explaining it to you. It's like trying to explain how to make lasagna to a duck.

 

[8537]

All the tea partiers voted against it. The opportunistic ones who wanted to gain the marketing but who don't really believe in liberty just identified themselves.

No True Scotsman!

I see, a liberal knows a true tea partier. Gotcha. Next time I want a retarded opinion I know where to find you. No true tea partier would support a $100 billion cut with a $1.4 trillion deficit. It's what the whole movement is about. Yet they compromised from there. That's not a True Scotsman fallacy, that's content. Something since you're a liberal you'd obviously know nothing about so I"m not sure why I'm explaining it to you. It's like trying to explain how to make lasagna to a duck.

No True Tea Partier!

<how convenient. I await the Tea Party Caucus vote to kick those members out of the caucus>

 

[Liability]

8537 enters contest JUST in time to WIN the "no overused cliche" award!

 

[MeBelle]

If the federal government would stop bailing out states period maybe the states will live within their means and not have the problems they have now, like California for a prime example. Also if this where the case the federal gubment would not be in the position it's in now fiscally. California is not entitled to my federal tax dollars to cover it's irresponsible policies. The sooner that money get's cut off, the sooner people will vote those morons out of office and get someone in there who will be responsible.

United States Federal Tax Dollars -

Except for every tax dollar they receive per tax dollar paid is 0.78. So California is #8 out of all 50 states.
So while I know you are probably told over and over again it's all states like California's fault for taking all the federal government money, it's not.

It's NOT federal government money, it's OUR money!

It's not about how MUCH of our tax dollars get funneled through the system and get back to the states, it's about HOW they spend it! Irresponsible policies is correct. One that comes to mind is allowing anchor babies to receive in-state tuition. The fact that our Fed Govt WON'T close the dang borders is another irresponsible policy, but that policy needs to

be enforced by..................

wait for it..............


the Fed Govt!

 

[ShackledNation]

That was a good catch. What is a fact is that the House of Representatives is only 1 of 3 co-equal branches of government. And the 'tea party' does not control the House.

The President is part of the legislative process in that he submits a budget to them and has a veto over any and all legislation that they pass.

No, the President is not part of the legislative branch. His power to veto is a check on the legislative branch. Line-item veto was declared unconstitutional because such vetos gave legislative power to the president. Saying no to a law is not an act of legislating, it is an executive power. The president is not part of the legislative branch at all, period.

What part of "in that' did you fail to comprehend? Would 'in as much as' been easier for you?

The President, as the leader of the Democrat party, just as Bush was the leader of the Republican party, exerts an almost absolute power over the members of his party in the legislature.

When Obama wants something, he hollers SHIT at Pelosi and Reid and they holler back 'what color and how high a pile.'

Do you know what "in that" means? If you say the President is a member of the legislative branch in that...you are still saying he is a member of the legislative branch, and the statement following "in that" explains why the preceding statement is true (Unless you were being sarcastic, which I dont think you were). The President cannot legislate and has no legislative power. Of course and can persuade Congress to pass certain laws, but he does not pass them or draft the laws or write them at all. What you should have said is that the president can check the legislative branch and influence their policy in that he has the power to veto laws and propose a budget. Such powers do not make him part of the legislative branch, nor are they legislative powers.

 

[Ali777]

That was a good catch. What is a fact is that the House of Representatives is only 1 of 3 co-equal branches of government. And the 'tea party' does not control the House.

The President is part of the legislative process in that he submits a budget to them and has a veto over any and all legislation that they pass.

No, the President is not part of the legislative branch. His power to veto is a check on the legislative branch. Line-item veto was declared unconstitutional because such vetos gave legislative power to the president. Saying no to a law is not an act of legislating, it is an executive power. The president is not part of the legislative branch at all, period.

What part of "in that' did you fail to comprehend? Would 'in as much as' been easier for you?

The President, as the leader of the Democrat party, just as Bush was the leader of the Republican party, exerts an almost absolute power over the members of his party in the legislature.

When Obama wants something, he hollers SHIT at Pelosi and Reid and they holler back 'what color and how high a pile.'

Except that's not how our government works. Not at all. I guess you didn't notice that a lot of democrats voted against the deal he made with the devil. They were also very upset with him when made a deal with Boerhner to extend the Bush era tax cuts. They're not too happy with him right now. Haven't you been watching the news?

 

[JakeStarkey]

All the tea partiers voted against it. The opportunistic ones who wanted to gain the marketing but who don't really believe in liberty just identified themselves.

The pure TeaPots are dangerously wrong, so they must go. The opportunists should go, too, but I imagine that Boehner scared the holy joe out of them.

Teapartiers are dangerous all right, to government loving fools who are building the prison walls of government around themselves and sadly gladly so. But to those of us who haven't given up on freedom they are a Godsend.

Yawn.

 

[J.E.D]

The newbie has decided to think he can take on Shogun. This should be interesting.

It was actually pretty easy to shut him up. Why, am I supposed to be scared or something?

 

[Oldstyle]

"No, that's the answer of someone who can see through your shit, and can't be bothered to answer it. Shit is shit, and for the most part undeserving of a response."

Ah yes...another progressive "sage" who instead of refuting someone's argument refers to it as "shit". What's with you people? Does the very THOUGHT of having to make a reasoned, well thought out response strike that much fear in you?

As I said to Jakey...I'd be thrilled to hear your thoughts on WHY my positions are "shit", BDBoop. I'm guessing that you're not up to that though...anymore than the Jakester is...hence your "shit is shit" comeback. Let's face it...the reason you don't respond is that you don't have a response other than the incredibly incisive "shit is shit". Quite the debater you are!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Post something worthy of discussion, Oldstyle, not just assertions and pronouncements without evidence, and I am sure every swinging Jane and Jack will be glad to discuss with you.,

You are under this idea that you are a source by yourself, and, of course, you are: a source of amusement.

 

[Oldstyle]

"I still stand by the fact that 49 states have some form of a Balanced Budget Amendment and a ton of them are in deep trouble even with the help of the Federal Government. Without the Feds, several states would likely be completely bankrupt at this point. This doesn't even include the ones like Texas which are "balancing" their budgets through accounting measures. If the BBA was the magical solution that some of it's proponents are saying it is, we wouldn't be having these problems"

I'm curious, Modbert...do you not "get" that what the States are going through right now because by law they HAVE to pass a supposedly balanced budget, is nothing more than a microcosm of what the Federal Government will be going through once the Chinese refuse to finance our debt anymore? Right now we're just printing money to pay for things...devaluing the dollar each time we do so. The States can't do that, therefore they are having to address their budget shortfalls.

The reason that Democrats are SO afraid of the balanced budget amendment is that it would force them to fix things. God forbid we do THAT!

 

[kaz]

No True Scotsman!

I see, a liberal knows a true tea partier. Gotcha. Next time I want a retarded opinion I know where to find you. No true tea partier would support a $100 billion cut with a $1.4 trillion deficit. It's what the whole movement is about. Yet they compromised from there. That's not a True Scotsman fallacy, that's content. Something since you're a liberal you'd obviously know nothing about so I"m not sure why I'm explaining it to you. It's like trying to explain how to make lasagna to a duck.

No True Tea Partier!

<how convenient. I await the Tea Party Caucus vote to kick those members out of the caucus>

Since you don't know what a true scotsman fallacy is, why don't you google it? The true scotsman fallacy is more then saying, "no true..." Google, a liberals worst nightmare. It's a cure for ignorance. Unfortunately it does nothing for stupidity.